Central Information Commission
Narayan Sharma vs Indira Gandhi National Open University ... on 13 March, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IGNOU/A/2022/160282
Narayan Sharma ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Indira Gandhi National
Open University, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24.11.2022 FA : 25.11.2022 SA : 23.12.2022
CPIO : 25.11.2022 FAO : 28.11.2022 Hearing : 06.03.2024
Date of Decision: 12.03.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.11.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"I am the student of IGNOU of July 2019, BSCG batch is there any process for the student if the student RE-EVALUATION date is over. Actually I want the RE-EVALUATION of BPCSl87 of JUNE 2A22 TEE but, I cannot apply because I think the date is over, Sir/Mam I request you to kindly tell me that is there any process through which I can apply now. Because I am thinking that I can get Page 1 of 3 more marks in REEVALUATION. I know that there will a process. I hope so. Please help me Sir/Mam.
ENROLLMENT number - 194515337"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The university has a provision to re - evaluate the answer script of the students and obtaining the photocopy of Answer Scrip, those who are not satisfied with the quality of the evaluation of their answer script by paying the requisite fee subject to the condition that student should be eligible to apply under this scheme. In this regard the link for which is given below https://onlineservices.ignou.ac.in/reevaluation/"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.11.2022. alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 28.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.12.2022.
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Manoj Kumar, Assistant Registrar, Delhi and Gyan Prakash, ASO, Delhi attended the hearing in-person.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the detailed procedure for sending application for re-evaluation was available at their website and they had shared the relevant weblink with the appellant, in their reply dated 25.11.2022.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Page 2 of 3 Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 12.03.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, RTI Cell IGNOU, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi - 110068
2. Narayan Sharma Page 3 of 3